2007-11-24 02:28:27 · 11 answers · asked by Joey W 1 in Health ➔ Diseases & Conditions ➔ Infectious Diseases
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/135029
please take a look
2007-11-24 05:14:03 · update #1
The thing that is funny is most of this hype is based on studies in Africa, in which they took 2600 men, choose half to be circumcised and left the other half intact. The ones that were cut were told not to have sex for 2 months. After nine months 22 (7 months really) of the cut men had aids and 47 of the uncut men had aids. They then decided that this was proven and ended the study after 9 months, but it was suppose to last 2 years. They then circumcised the other 1300 and therefore destroyed any future study of this group. To me this sounds like they set out to prove something and jumped out the second they could call it a success.
Although they can't prove it, some scientist believe that the presence of Langerhan cells in the male prepuces are "the reason" that uncut men have a higher chance of getting AIDS. If this is a good reason to cut men it should also be a good reason to remove the prepuce (Clitoral Hood) of a female for the same reasons. (Which is illegal to do to an underage girl in the US)
The 5 countries with the smallest AIDS problems are mostly uncut. If you look at it from that side, it may be the inverse. The USA is mostly Cut and we have the worst AIDS problem of a first world country. To me, I think it is non-factor. You get AIDS by having sex with someone with AIDS, the best way not to get AIDS is not to have sex or have sex with a condom.
I am not really worried about AIDS at this point, although I have never been tested, my wife is about to give me a son and she has been tested for the pregnancy, so I think I am good. And BTW, my son will be kept intact.
2007-11-26 03:27:59 · answer #1 · answered by Rise Against 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
These studies are crap. They took two groups of men at risk and did not correct for differing behavior (the circumcised men had significantly fewer sexual contacts during the study period) and then published the totally flawed results in the popular press.
Why would a man cut off part of his penis to MAYBE slightly reduce the chances of getting HIV instead of using a condom, which dramatically decreases the risk? Why would a man undergo this mutilation instead of taking the sensible path of staying loyal to his wife, for that matter? Condoms are the first line of defense, and anything that gives men the false idea that they are protected and need not use condoms may increase the prevalence of HIV within a few years!
In Africa HIV is spread largely by the clients of HIV-positive prostitutes. Teaching the prostitutes to use condoms would greatly lessen the transmission of the disease. In developed countries there are many fewer HV+ prostitutes. Getting your foreskin amputated will not protect you from getting HIV from a contaminated needle, which is how it is likely to spread outside Africa. The study also specifically excluded gay men; there is no indication that genital alterations would decrease HIV transmission among gay men, where the mechanics of transmission are quite different. In a few years this "study" will have been totally discredited, but the men who have been mutilated will not be able to get their foreskins back.
2007-12-01 04:11:02 · answer #2 · answered by Maple 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pinche gives a really good answer. The studies are from Africa and flawed, so it's not proven yet. And simple stats like the fact the USA is the developed nation with BOTH the highest circumcision rate and the highest HIV+ rate, seem to contradict this. If there is a slight reduction it's because the skin dries up and becomes harder/scarred - ew! Also, this is no reason for infant circumcision, a guy can decide what he wants when he becomes sexually active. I would go with the getting partners tested/using condoms thing.
Also, this only applies with female-to-male transmission. Male-to-female or male-to-male or intravenous drug users it makes no difference.
2007-11-27 16:33:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
About one half million mostly "circumcised" males have died of aids in this country.
The non-"circumcising" countries of Europe have lower HIV rates than the US has (also of other STDs, and cancer of the cervix and penis too)
The age group that is sexually active now has a high rate of "circumcision" and it hasn't helped a bit to stop or even slow down the transmission of any disease.
Chopping off body parts does not stop disease.
2007-11-24 03:00:35 · answer #4 · answered by cut50yearsago 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Don't believe the hype.
If that were true, Nigeria and the USA would be HIV-free. They're not. Nigeria has one of the highest HIV-prevalence rates in West Africa. Circumcision doesn't prevent HIV. Condoms do though.
2007-11-25 17:24:27 · answer #5 · answered by SunkenShip 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
In the same way women, with more exposed and vulnerable genitals, are more likely to get herpes. I have heard this before.
But only if you are practicing unsafe sex in the first place, which I hope you aren't. It is no justification for circumcision which is a barbaric practice.
2007-11-25 05:41:09 · answer #6 · answered by mayflower25 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
No it dosn't. Some consider circumcision to be more hygenic but if a male is taught how to keep himself clean at an early age he wont have a problem.
2007-11-24 02:41:07 · answer #7 · answered by holly 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
no who told u this stupid idea?circumcision is not a medicine n it can only give u more hygienic personally.hiv can be prevented by using condom only.
2007-11-24 02:43:17 · answer #8 · answered by robert KS LEE. 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Are you crazy?
2007-11-24 02:35:42 · answer #9 · answered by Brooklyn 2 · 7⤊ 0⤋
not at all, it has zero effect.
2007-11-24 02:36:23 · answer #10 · answered by D.Torrence 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋